## Yoma Daf 52a

###### Yoma 52a:1
[Yoma 52a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/52a:1)

לְמֵיעַל לְהֶדְיָא. וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי אָמַר לָךְ: חֲבִיבִין יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁלֹּא הִצְרִיכָן הַכָּתוּב לְשָׁלִיחַ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**to enter directly,** as it is more appropriate for the High Priest to approach the Holy of Holies somewhat circuitously. **And** in response to this **Rabbi Yosei** could have **said to you: The Jewish people are beloved** by God, **as the Torah did not require them** to make use **of an agent,** e.g., an angel, to intercede on their behalf. Instead, God hears the nation’s prayers directly. Consequently, the High Priest, who represents the people on Yom Kippur, need not approach in a roundabout fashion.


###### Yoma 52a:2
[Yoma 52a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/52a:2)

וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה נָמֵי, נֵיעוּל בֵּין מְנוֹרָה לְכוֹתֶל! מַשְׁחֲרִי מָאנֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But** if an indirect approach is a mark of respect, in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Yehuda, too, let** the High Priest **enter** indirectly **between** the **candelabrum and the wall.** The Gemara answers: If the High Priest walks by that route, he might **blacken his clothes** through the soot left on the wall by the candelabrum.


###### Yoma 52a:3
[Yoma 52a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/52a:3)

אָמַר רַבִּי נָתָן: אַמָּה טְרַקְסִין, לֹא הִכְרִיעוּ בּוֹ חֲכָמִים אִי כְּלִפְנִים אִי כְּלַחוּץ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Natan said:** With regard to the **one-cubit partition, the Sages did not determine** its status, **whether** it was part **of the inside** of the Holy of Holies **or** part **of the outside** area of the Sanctuary.


###### Yoma 52a:4
[Yoma 52a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/52a:4)

מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רָבִינָא: מַאי טַעְמָא? אִילֵּימָא מִשּׁוּם דִּכְתִיב: ״וְהַבַּיִת אֲשֶׁר בָּנָה הַמֶּלֶךְ שְׁלֹמֹה לַה׳ שִׁשִּׁים אַמָּה אׇרְכּוֹ וְעֶשְׂרִים רׇחְבּוֹ וּשְׁלֹשִׁים אַמָּה קוֹמָתוֹ״, וּכְתִיב: ״וְאַרְבָּעִים בָּאַמָּה הָיָה הַבָּיִת הוּא הַהֵיכָל לִפְנָי״, וּכְתִיב: ״וְלִפְנֵי הַדְּבִיר עֶשְׂרִים אַמָּה אוֹרֶךְ וְעֶשְׂרִים אַמָּה רוֹחַב וְעֶשְׂרִים אַמָּה קוֹמָתוֹ״, וְלָא יָדְעִינַן אַמָּה טְרַקְסִין אִי מֵהָנֵי עֶשְׂרִים, וְאִי מֵהָנֵי אַרְבָּעִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Ravina strongly objects to this** opinion: **What is the reason** for this uncertainty? **If we say** it is **because it is written: “And the House that King Solomon built for the Lord was sixty cubits in length, and its width was twenty cubits, and its height was thirty cubits”** (I Kings 6:2), **and it is written: “And the House, that is, the Sanctuary, was forty cubits long”** (I Kings 6:17), **and it is written: “And before the partition twenty cubits in length, and twenty cubits in width, and twenty cubits in height”** (I Kings 6:20), **and** therefore **we do not know whether the one-cubit partition** was part **of these twenty** cubits of the Holy of Holies or part **of these forty** cubits of the Sanctuary, then this problem can be resolved.


###### Yoma 52a:5
[Yoma 52a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/52a:5)

וְדִילְמָא לָא מֵהָנֵי עֶשְׂרִין וְלָא מֵהָנֵי אַרְבְּעִין, וַחֲלָלָא קָא חָשֵׁיב, כְּותָלִים לָא קָא חָשֵׁיב. תִּדַּע, דְּכֹל הֵיכָא דְּקָא חָשֵׁיב כְּותָלִים — חָשֵׁיב לֵיהּ לְדִידֵיהּ,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Ravina explains the resolution of the problem: **But perhaps** it was **not** part **of these twenty** cubits **nor** part **of these forty** cubits, as in establishing the measurements the verse **counts the space** but **does not count** the **walls** themselves, i.e., the cubit of the wall is not included in either measurement. **Know** that it is so, **as anywhere that** the verse **counts** the area of **the walls** in addition to the spaces they contain, it also **counts** the one-cubit partition.


###### Yoma 52a:6
[Yoma 52a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/52a:6)

דִּתְנַן: הַהֵיכָל מֵאָה עַל מֵאָה בְּרוּם מֵאָה. כּוֹתֶל אוּלָם חָמֵשׁ, וְהָאוּלָם אַחַת עֶשְׂרֵה, כּוֹתֶל הַהֵיכָל שֵׁשׁ, וְאׇרְכּוֹ אַרְבָּעִים אַמָּה, וְאַמָּה טְרַקְסִין, וְעֶשְׂרִים אַמָּה בֵּית קׇדְשֵׁי הַקֳּדָשִׁים, כּוֹתֶל הַהֵיכָל שֵׁשׁ, וְהַתָּא שֵׁשׁ, וְכוֹתֶל הַתָּא חָמֵשׁ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Ravina cites a proof for the previous claim. **As we learned** in a mishna: **The Sanctuary** was **one hundred** cubits **by one hundred** cubits, **with a height of one hundred** cubits. From east to west, the hundred cubits were divided as follows: The **wall of the Entrance Hall** was **five** cubits; **and the Entrance Hall** itself was **eleven** cubits; the **wall of the Sanctuary** was **six** cubits; the **length** of the Sanctuary itself was **forty cubits; and** there was the **one-cubit partition;** the **Hall of** the **Holy of Holies** was another **twenty cubits;** the outer **wall of the Sanctuary** was **six** cubits; **and the chamber** behind it was **six** cubits; **and the wall of the chamber** was **five** cubits. This mishna proves that when the walls are counted in addition to the spaces, the one-cubit partition is included in the calculation.


###### Yoma 52a:7
[Yoma 52a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/52a:7)

אֶלָּא קְדוּשְּׁתֵיהּ אִי כְּלִפְנִים אִי כְּלַחוּץ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** the uncertainty does not concern the location of the one-cubit partition, which was certainly positioned between the Sanctuary and the Holy of Holies. Instead, the issue is **its sanctity, whether** it was considered **like the inside** of the Holy of Holies **or like the outside** area of the Sanctuary. Since there was no such wall in the Second Temple, the Sages were uncertain with regard to the status of the extra cubit.


###### Yoma 52a:8
[Yoma 52a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/52a:8)

וְהַיְינוּ דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, בָּעֵי יוֹסֵף אִישׁ הוּצָל: ״וּדְבִיר בְּתוֹךְ הַבַּיִת מִפְּנִימָה הֵכִין לְתִתֵּן שָׁם אֶת אֲרוֹן בְּרִית ה׳״. אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: הֵיכִי קָאָמַר קְרָא:

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **And this is what Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Yosef of Hutzal raised a dilemma** with regard to the verse: **“And he prepared a partition in the midst of the House within to set there the Ark of the Covenant of the Lord”** (I Kings 6:19). This was his **dilemma** that **was raised before** the Sages: With regard to **what** case **is** the verse **speaking?**


###### Yoma 52a:9
[Yoma 52a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/52a:9)

״וּדְבִיר בְּתוֹךְ הַבַּיִת מִפְּנִימָה הֵכִין לְתִתֵּן שָׁם״, אוֹ דִילְמָא הָכִי קָאָמַר: ״וּדְבִיר בְּתוֹךְ הַבַּיִת מִפְּנִימָה״?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains the dilemma. Should it be read: **And** Solomon **prepared a partition in the midst of the House within to set there,** meaning that he placed the partition within the Temple and behind it he prepared a space to place the Ark, and the partition itself did not possess the sanctity of the Holy of Holies? **Or perhaps this is** what the verse **states: A partition in the midst of the House within,** i.e., the verse ends there, while the rest of the text forms a new verse. According to this interpretation, the place of the partition itself was part of the Holy of Holies, and that was where Solomon prepared a place for the Ark.


###### Yoma 52a:10
[Yoma 52a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/52a:10)

וּמִי מְסַפְּקָא לֵיהּ? וְהַתַּנְיָא, אִיסִי בֶּן יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: חָמֵשׁ מִקְרָאוֹת בַּתּוֹרָה אֵין לָהֶן הֶכְרֵעַ:

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara is surprised at this explanation: **And was** Yosef of Hutzal really **uncertain** how to punctuate this verse? **But wasn’t it taught** in a *baraita* that **Isi ben Yehuda says:** There are **five verses in the Torah whose** meaning **cannot be decided,** i.e., it is unclear from the text how the verses should be read.